Forum:Wikia Spotlight

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 707 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So, whats with this "Wikia Spotlight" stuff? What does it add towards our purpose here, if anything? Does it add humor to pages? Does it add a visual appeal to the site? ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Against, I don't like the concept, the pictures are ugly, it isn't funny, and its also a pretty big inside joke. I say we should huff it rather then feature it. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the new Wikia Spotlight suck?

1. Yes

27

2. No

4

3. I don't care.

14

4. More ads!

4

The poll was created at 21:23 on June 12, 2007, and so far 49 people voted.

Please wait, submitting your vote...

While I hate to be devil's advocate, I have to say that I don't care one way or another. To be honest, it's a nonentity to me. I don't click on it, I don't look at it. Same with Digg and del.i.cious or however you do it. I care about the site, it's one of my favorite places to visit. I respect everyone here and their opinions, but I must respectfully disagree. We have had a long and rather heated debate in IRC, Rangeley and I, and my views are known. I think that if we come now to Wikia and say that we are unhappy with this, then we are coming off as petulant and unwilling to compromise, which will lead to adversity. Then, when something more drastic happens (as Rangeley believes it will) they will pay us no mind because we're not to be reasoned with. We can't let that happen.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There will never be a sudden, drastic change. It will always come in the form of a gradual phasing in, or small steps which only appear large when taken together. Just like with the frog in "An Inconvenient Truth," when thrown into boiling water it jumps out. But when put in normal water that gradually increases in temp, it does not notice. Its for this reason that we cant wait for a sudden, drastic change - because Wikia is never going to do something so big. Therefore, you must look at all additions, and ask yourself if they make Uncyclopedia a better site. If they do not, why should we keep our dislike for them secret? Why tolerate these bite sized bad additions, if, when taken together, we would have rejected them? Lets not get slowly acclimated to mediocrity and useless detractions from our content, we should recognize their uselessness, and accordingly reject them. ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re both Spang and Rangely: Spang: I think that they're going to replace it soon, from what sannse said in IRC. Rangeley: It seems to me that you have a very conspiratorial and jaded view of the world, similar to a Robert Ludlum novel. What I see you doing is taking Wikia, making it a gigantic corporation and taking away its heart. Remember that at its heart there aren't cold heartless CEOs and other various executives, but people who love the wiki just like we do. Several contribute here, and Jimbo himself likes us. Wikipedia hasn't become a Geocities website, and its a bigger bureaucracy than this place. As for your continual "Inconvenient Truth" analogy, I don't appreciate being compared to a frog. We are human beings, and as such we are able to remember what we dislike beyond the most recent few seconds (except for some people, but I will not name names). We're not getting acclimated to mediocrity, we're getting acclimated to one little box that will eventually replace the Google ads. We are not changing any of our writing processes, and I think that if you gave it a little bit more thought with a more open mind, you'd realize that that's the hit that we shouldn't take. Look, it's the internet. Things aren't going to be perfect. With this sort of system, perhaps it's better to stop nitpicking about individual taste in looks and worry more about our actual content. We are not actually content-free, and we should reflect that. Once we do that, then the exact aesthetics can be discussed. In short, what I'm saying is this: we know that we dislike this. But it's not a great idea to make a big hoopla about this. You've voiced your concerns multiple times, and now you'll be able to point them out should yet another change be introduced. Then, perhaps, I'll be able to understand what you're saying better.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Wikia is a heartless, evil, bureaucratic conglomeration leading a conspiracy to destroy this site, as was so subtly hinted at by Famine. I am saying this: they are a business, and acquired Uncyclopedia to make their business as a whole more profitable. Sometimes, the things they do towards these ends will be beneficial to us. But sometimes they will not be. This is a case where it doesn't help us. I understand what you are saying about waiting for "yet another change," but this has been said after each change and further enforces the analogy I put forward, in which incremental changes are less noticed, and more easilly tolerated, than sudden ones. When they originally acquired the site, it was warned that we could head down that path. The first case came when they plugged themselves in our press releases to the media, even at times claiming to have "spawned" Uncyclopedia. Then, they added the links to diggs and delicious, which are rather unattractive and useless towards the purposes of this site. This addition of ads for other wikia sites is just the latest, and just the latest occasion where the time tested "wait till another thing happens, then I will understand you" refrain has been used. Taken one by one people can easily do this, but taken together it is a notable departure from the way things were as our own, independent site.

We are looking more and more like just another Wikia site, and people who have worked on the Uncyclopedia article at Wikipedia with me have had to deal with this attitude there. This isn't the direction that such a successful site as this should be taking - another site I go to started out on "Invisionfree," but as it became more successful it moved to its own host so that it could better carry out the changes that were best for the site. For people like me who hoped that Uncyclopedia could move forward in this matter, as a progressively more independent project driven by our own ideas an innovations, each one of these incremental changes is a depressing step in the wrong direction. Brad said he is no fan of alarmism, but alarmism is raising concern about things that do not exist. The regressive steps towards a site more and more dependent and intertwined with Wikia, serving more and more to raise their profits, and less and less to further its own purposes and ends, are occurring. I think that this site deserves better than what it has today, and no amount of things Wikia does will ever justify, in my mind, things done which clutter the page or press releases with plugs for themselves. Any argument that they are in it just to be nice falls flat on its face with their plugging, its as simple as that. We aren't heading in the right direction, and even though pointing this out always seems to draw mockery, or calls to just drop it, I do it because I want this site to start heading in the right direction. I don't think its a lost cause, and I still have hope that we can get there. But we can only get there if we - not just me - want to. If this is truly a minority view that I hold, then so be it. But if not, its time to be ever so slightly vocal towards achieving some more creative independence as far as our site goes. Uncyclopedia deserves it, but it will only have it if people feel that Uncyclopedia should be anything other than a Wikia site. ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, however, isn't it a Wikia site? I mean, no, it didn't spawn it, Chronarion did. No, it didn't live with us during the first year, we found ways around it. The fact is, however, it has only gotten better since the acquisition. This has nothing to do with Wikia, but consider this. If we attempt to stage a coup, and we are hypothetically successful, overthrowing our oppressive leaders, then what? How will we get money in the first months? When we are in the red, how will we climb back out? When we lose our servers because of this lack, then what? Even if this worst case never happens, we'll have to now work not only to keep the site not-Illogicopedia, but also to keep it afloat. With one of these needs allayed, then what's the problem with a little promotion?

OK, I'll give, the Wikia Spotlight is ugly. This can be changed rather simply. If we streamline it, it won't seem as evil. But is it really worth it to give up on our good host? Granted, you've been here longer than I, but to be honest I think this gives me a clearer head and clearer view. Be honest, you're scared of change. Any change at all, it seems. Anything, however minute, will cause you to sound the alarms. When you list all of the things that have been here, I can't help but wonder how different people's reactions would be if they had all been introduced together. Forgetting the newest addition, ads + digg are both things that, even when taken in bulk, are not very alarming. You can yell all you want, but the bottom line is that I doubt that even if all three of the introductions were given in bulk, the hoopla would be minimal and short-lived at best.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not of the view that anyone can honestly oppose change in itself, as a concept. There can be change towards the better, and change for the worse - and its on this sort of case by case analysis that change should be looked at through. As I said earlier, I looked forward to Uncyclopedia changing towards a more and more independent site, driven by our own ideas and innovations. I still look forward to this sort of change. What I don't like, and certainly do not see as beneficial to this site, is a regressive sort of change away from being driven by our own ideas and innovations, and towards becoming just another part of Wikia. The changes I listed, when taken together, do paint an image of Wikia doing something other then being a benevolent owner working towards nothing but Uncyclopedia's interests. It shows them to be willing to enact changes on our site which serve us no benefit, but instead help Wikia. Why is this significant? Because its constantly put forward that this is all they do - or all they would do with their ownership of this site. That they would do nothing we would not have done otherwise, nothing that we did not want. This is not a reality, however.

The "coup" that you talk about is putting a solution into rather extreme terms. I do not know the exact means in which we can achieve the change I speak of, though we must recall that Wikia hosted this site before they owned it, and while it was still owned by a member of this site. If we were to return to that sort of set up, that's a good change, and a step towards more creative freedom. This is certainly not the only option we have, but regardless of the exact means, the desire to have freedom to pursue our own path in the future is something we shouldn't put away. I think its a natural progression successful sites should take, and I do not doubt that there is some way in which we could achieve it, if we tried to. ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we'd get the wikia spotlight instead of the google ads, not as well as. As it is now, no thanks. Also, the wikia spotlight box is not valid XHTML, and the Digg etc. links still aren't either. •Spang•☃•talk•11:05, 12 Jun 2007

Also the Wikia box is quite hideous. Luckily Opera allows for easy imageblocking, though the text remains. Do people still use asterisks to set off text? I thought that went out in the 90s. —rc(t) 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could talk Wikia into making ads that are more up to Uncyclopedia specifications? As it is right now, they're the worst-looking thing on every page but Goa Tse, Poop Cuisine, and Forum talk:Village Dump. Oh, and there was one about Scorpions too, I think. What other images has Mhaille done? Anyway, maybe they don't mind chasing people off?--<<>> 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

As I see it

It seems clear that our current hosting providers have a world-view which is very much in consonance with that of this community. Over the last few months, drastic changes have been made, most of which were completely counter their unstated goal of destroying this community. I, and many others, feel that this is an outrage, and it must stop at once.

While hosting is an expensive proposition, I feel that while we do have a sizable discount, we are in no way getting what we're paying for. Our hard earned cash is only filling the coffers of this megolithic, soulless corporation, allowing them to spread more evil about the interwebs. In exchange for this, have we seen the promised increase in bandwidth and server hardware? Have we seen the stability, server accessibility, and site-personalized coding we demanded?

To complete the trifecta, the Wikia Corporation seems completely unable to hire useful executives. Those they do have are inept, incompetent, and clearly are unable to function in their position as soulless executive drones, hellbent on layering bureaucracy, inefficiency, and quashing their customers and patrons. I, and many others, demand that these current executives be replaced with some who can appropriately function in this capacity. (One only need look at Gil to see what I'm talking about.)

It is time for action, my friends. No longer can we sit idly by. We must fight. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this website or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our database dumps beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the admins, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time a new hosting provider with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.

Frog analogy

Wikia may be boiling frogs like this one right now.

I see that everywhere (the Al Gore use was just the most recent). A quick browse at Wikipedia tells me they can't seem to duplicate this experiment in recent tests. So, maybe the analogy doesn't actually work. Also, I'm not a big fan of alarmism.--<<>> 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting past all the rhetoric and such

The main point is that, we as Uncyclopedians are seeing no benefit to this move whatsoever. It detracts from the site, plain and simple. The silver lining is that there is no silver lining. Our bandwidth has not increased, our site traffic is not improved. In short, we are left wondering how this change benefits us. We are open to discussions on that matter (though I'm probably more open than Range is). The fact remains that Uncyclopedia is a slow site that now has two ads instead of just one, and the quality of each page has been lowered as a result, and we, the people who are entrusted with quality-assurance are looking for some means to justify this.--<<>> 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to say is: taken at its most optimistic, we are doing Wikia a major favor with this ad, and recieving nothing in return.--<<>> 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What Brad is actually trying to say is that, for a relatively small amount of money, the Uncyclopedia administrative staff would be happy to back off the issue, and possibly even forget it ever happened. You know, just something to think about... t o m p k i n s blah.ﺞوﻦוףהՃՄண்ஸފއހวอฏม+տtrade websites04:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Tompkins has boiled this issue down to what really bothers most of us. Where's our cut? ;)--<<>> 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Overlord's representative replies

The first point I have to make is: "oops!"... yes, the spotlight is supposed to replace the Google ads, not be in addition to them. The problem is that the Google ads are not served via our ad server as they are on other wikis we host, and there has been a problem in enabling the ad server ads and removing the Google ones. This will be fixed as soon as possible (I'm not around to nag this evening, unless the guy from BT I'm waiting for actually fixes my connection, but will do so when I'm on at the right time).

The next thing I want to point out is that this was discussed in advance*. As I've said before, not every change will be, but we will always discuss first where we can. And we are sensitive to Uncyclopedia's particular needs (which is why you won't be having the new skin as default - unless you want it of course).

I think where I fundamentally disagree with Rangeley (and I accept his point from IRC that I am biased) is that I disagree that what's good for Wikia as a whole isn't good for Uncyclopedia. If these ads help some other wikis we host grow and thrive, then that boosts the company as a whole, which feeds straight back to Unyclopedia in stability, features, staffing, and so on. It's a two way relationship, and that means give and take on both sides.

Yes, I understand Rangeley's froggy fears. And yes there will be change - and over time that will add up to big changes. But I trust that will be of benefit to Uncyclopedia and the rest of Wikia. The only way I can get you to share that trust is from your knowledge of me and the others involved in the company, and from seeing the changes we make and our reactions to your feedback.

I gotta go wait for the BT man, but let me know if I missed replying to any of the points above -- sannse (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how do you justify something like this? The site as it stands now merely conveys the distinct message that en.uncyc is the Desciclopédia's poorer cousin... and this by a country mile. They're brazillionnaires with real money while Uncyclopedia is wiki's answer to geocities and an effort fit for a third-world country at best. The new ads don't fit with the site - every other sidebar box has non-bold, left-aligned lowercase titles, consistent box width, no images, no colour in title or border and content as a left-aligned bullet text list. The content of the others also somehow relates to the page or to Uncyclopedia. That isn't true of this mess... the content is random and irrelevant. It doesn't belong here. Every other wiki that Wikia has defaced with these ads looks like garbage, and now it appears that the main Uncyclopedia has the same problems. Only question: how long before pop-up ads are added to the mix? --205.150.76.41 12:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The target is people who edit and read wikis. - sannse (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

MO posts On-Topic for some reason

Keep them and stop bitching, I say. They make me feel less nerdy. I mean, c'mon, a Star Wars Galaxies wiki? A Lord of the Rings wiki? I feel normal now. Except this spot here. It feels elbowy. There's one on the other side too. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's better

OK, so we got the layout problem sorted, and now the spotlight is instead of the Google ads, not in addition to. Now to uglyness... suggestions? Example HTML? Spang's IRC suggestion of "no pictures, no colour, and 1px font size" ain't quite gonna fly -- sannse (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not rename "lunch money" "Wikia spotlight" and have it in the same format as the "toolbox" that's above it? SirModusoperandiBoinc! 11:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds terrific to me. It can take up the same amount of space that it takes now (you could probably get six spotlights in there), and it'd blend with the rest of the site perfectly.--<<>> 12:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The pictures draw the eye just a teensy bit too much and might be a bit unfair on pictureless articles. Glad to see I missed most of the aggro and can come back just in time for the sanit... wait, Modus said something serious? /me faints. -- (but) UntrueWhhhy?Whut?How?*Back from the dead* 16:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It should look like the "in other languages" and the rest of the sidebar. A format using a simple bulleted list of text links targeted to point directly to specific pages on other wikis that relate directly to the topic of the page currently being viewed. If "lunch money" could be renamed "wikia spotlight", the need for the second concentric table box would vanish as well. --Carlb 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carlb. And Modusoperandi, who I believe said that same thing but didn't spell it out the same way. Now where's Rangeley to tell us that by doing this we're allowing the Seventh Imam to usher in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 14:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the 13th imam. Obviously. Jafar ibn Muhammad coming back for the apocalypse? Madness! Everybody knows that Muhammad ibn Hasan would kick his ass (curiously the Wikipedia entry for Imam lists the the 13th as living from "(868- not dead)". Someday I'm going to move to a non-reality based world. That'll be cool). SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse already are Uncyclopedia admins. We see Famine around here often as the site is mostly full of baloney, but haven't heard from War or Civil Strife much lately as they've been busy in Iraq; not sure about Pestilence but last I heard he kept getting knocked offline by some sort of computer bug. --Carlb 14:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see target="_blank" added to the link code. At the moment anyone foolish enough to click the link is taken away from out beloved site, and that can't be good, can it? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

Umm, pardon me for breathing, but there are actually Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse. And no, that is not me smelling of beer, it is my Volvo (the 20 valve job). It somehow managed to accidentally fall into the kettle when still an infant. -- di Mario 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Disable it with javascript

Use this code:

(Code removed by Bradaphraser because he actually prefers the Wikia spotlight to the Google ads, since we can work with Wikia to make them clash with our site less. Comon guys, if you wanna disable it, fine, but don't post a HowTo in the forum, for crying out loud.)